...UK vs. USSR, 1972...

[MikeKozlowski]

Seriously interesting (to me at least) thread at TwiX. Would VERY much like to hear thoughts on this.

https://x.com/pinstripedline/status/1881096435061645772

Mike

[Nathan45]

Not really qualified to say anything, but I'm both a American and a guy so I'll pretend I know.

The initial thing that pops out is that the review naturally knew about critical shortages on the UK side and how they would affect the war, but not how similar shortages would affect the Soviets. Given that I suspect it would be more even then it appears at first glance.

[Craiglxviii]

Seriously interesting (to me at least) thread at TwiX. Would VERY much like to hear thoughts on this.

https://x.com/pinstripedline/status/1881096435061645772

Mike

This is a conversation I’ve been having with friends over the last few years of the Ukraine war. The conclusion was, BAOR wouldn’t have been a speedbump at all had the buckets of sunshine stayed in their bunkers; that Soviet kit was a lot crapper than anyone thought or realised at the time; their level of training and morale was much poorer than anyone thought or realised.

At sea, the RN would’ve done its job pretty well especially against the Soviet SSKs (and to get a good feel for this, watch “Warship” on YouTube).

In the air, we were still messing around with missiles by 1972; Red Top was in service and could have been a proto-Slammer with further planned development (as it was, it had M3.2, 60 degree engagement angle, 20k yard max range with IR seeker… and 70lb warhead, no typo)… but we chose AIM-9 & AIM-7 for the F-4K force. There was a lot we could’ve done there.

[Nathan45]

The lack of minsweepers still seems to be a persistent problem in almost any navy. Support ships just aren't sexy enough to get funding.

[Pdf27]

Not a surprise - back to the 1950s Global Strategy Paper the UK belief was that Nuke Early & Nuke Often was the only way for the UK to defend against a Soviet attack, for this very reason.

[Belushi TD]

How did they assume that the UK was going to go it alone? I can't imagine that the US forces stationed in the UK would have sat on their hands while the UK was under attack.

Belushi TD

[Zen9]

How did they assume that the UK was going to go it alone? I can't imagine that the US forces stationed in the UK would have sat on their hands while the UK was under attack.

Belushi TD

They'd hope for a Suez type situation of major rift between London and Washington.

At the Time, Northern Ireland might have provided a justification. Hyped by the media.

[Pdf27]

How did they assume that the UK was going to go it alone? I can't imagine that the US forces stationed in the UK would have sat on their hands while the UK was under attack.

It was written in July 1952 - a time when the US had blocked the UK from access to the nuclear technology we'd helped you develop during WW2, and indeed before we had developed our own independent nuclear deterrent (first UK test was in October 1952). In that context and with NATO only 3 years old, it was very easy for the policymakers of the time to assume that the US would leave them to their fate in case of war.

Indeed, separating European and US security is something that came up repeatedly during the Cold War. The Soviet introduction of SS-20 could be argued to be trying to achieve this, and the Europeans certainly saw the US doctrine of Flexible Response as being them trying to do the same thing. It's ultimately the reason for the British and French nuclear arsenals to this day - they may trust the US to a great extent, but not with the fate of their country when allowing it to be burned down to bedrock would spare the US a similar fate. No country would put themselves in that position voluntarily.

[Belushi TD]

Ah, I see.

My first reaction to the first paragraph was to actually laugh out loud. I can understand why, for purely stupid and selfish reasons, the nuclear gurus would keep the UK out of the loop, but I can't imagine the US, even in 1952, telling the UK to "Kiss off" during a full fledged conventional war with the USSR.

The USSR had a goal of splitting NATO, mainly by getting the US out of it. I can possibly see a scenario where it might have been conceivable, but in 1952 the bonds forged by WWII were still remarkably strong. I can't imagine a US in our timeline where we would have told the UK to bugger off and fight the soviets by themselves.

It might have taken a few days, but any president who said "Screw them, they can fight alone" wouldn't have a whelk's chance in a supernova of a continued political career.

Belushi TD